| Diane Abbott says 14:36 - Feb 11 with 6285 views | giant_stow |
"We see that the United States has decided that it needs to send US and other Nato troops to Russian borders. This alone should tell us that Russia is the aggressor should be treated sceptically,"
and
"The destabilisation in the entire region comes from the continued eastward expansion of Nato. We need to find peaceful solutions to a complicated conflict of identities and national rights."
I think she's got this arse about tit: there wouldn't be Nato reinforcements if Russia hadn't massed an invasion force on Ukraine's border.
And Russia doing this demonstrates exactly why Eastern European countries were so keen to join Nato! Or would she rather they had no agency to make those decisions?
Granted, Ukraine can probably never join and fingers crossed for it being declared neutral.
Edit: to add a 'nt! [Post edited 11 Feb 2022 15:23]
|  |
| |  |
| Diane Abbott says on 14:51 - Feb 11 with 3536 views | Darth_Koont |
I suppose the point is that the US has long been involved in this. Moving troops into the area isn’t something out of the blue.
I’m certainly no fan of Putin and his strong-arm tactics. But I’m equally no fan of the US (with the UK) love of proxy wars and generally throwing their weight around either.
I’d hoped that we would be a little further along in 2022. |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 14:57 - Feb 11 with 3497 views | Ftnfwest |
yes but she's done spreadsheets and everything |  | | |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:04 - Feb 11 with 3471 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 14:51 - Feb 11 by Darth_Koont |
I suppose the point is that the US has long been involved in this. Moving troops into the area isn’t something out of the blue.
I’m certainly no fan of Putin and his strong-arm tactics. But I’m equally no fan of the US (with the UK) love of proxy wars and generally throwing their weight around either.
I’d hoped that we would be a little further along in 2022. |
I don't know tbh... I'm aware I could be falling for western propaganda and yes, our hands aren't clean in the throwing weight around stakes, but Nato's current actions seem entirely defensive to me. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:06 - Feb 11 with 3459 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 14:57 - Feb 11 by Ftnfwest |
yes but she's done spreadsheets and everything |
She's said to be extremely intelligent innit, but people decline mentally as they get older* - maybe its hit her harder than most.
*believe it or not, this dim wit had a measured iq of 147 as a kid - think I'd be lucky to get into triple-figures now [Post edited 11 Feb 2022 15:06]
| |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:18 - Feb 11 with 3407 views | Guthrum |
| Diane Abbott says on 14:51 - Feb 11 by Darth_Koont |
I suppose the point is that the US has long been involved in this. Moving troops into the area isn’t something out of the blue.
I’m certainly no fan of Putin and his strong-arm tactics. But I’m equally no fan of the US (with the UK) love of proxy wars and generally throwing their weight around either.
I’d hoped that we would be a little further along in 2022. |
This has less to do with proxy wars than former Warsaw Pact/USSR states who greatly fear Russian re-expansion. That's why they all joined NATO, to gain some mutual defence security against their much larger neighbour and former overlord.
They do not wish to fall into some sort of Russian sphere of influence (again), eventually to be semi-absorbed as Belarus has been over the last couple of years. A lot of them have bad memories of the last time that happened.
Nobody actually wants a war in Ukraine, but Putin would love the threat of one to secure him some concessions in the region. |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:19 - Feb 11 with 3396 views | chicoazul |
She’s right. |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:21 - Feb 11 with 3376 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:19 - Feb 11 by chicoazul |
She’s right. |
Go on... | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:21 - Feb 11 with 3378 views | SouperJim |
She appears to be completely ignoring that the major driving force behind the current standoff is Putin annexed crimea, because a lot of people in Sevastopol speak Russian or something.
Let's just call it for what it is, Russia continuing to invade Ukraine. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 with 3354 views | chicoazul |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:21 - Feb 11 by giant_stow |
Go on... |
On both counts. They’re building up troops in the area; this is in part or entirely because of NATO expansionism.
Why does NATO exist anymore? It was an alliance to protect ourselves against an empire that dissolved 30 years ago. Nobody is saying we the US the hun or the French wouldn’t help a country in trouble with Russias decrepit armed forces unless we are in NATO; nobody is saying you have to be in NATO to qualify for help. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 with 3337 views | GlasgowBlue |
She's also trying to retrospectively blame Keir Starmer for both the Vietnam War and invasion of Iraq.
|  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:28 - Feb 11 with 3317 views | SouperJim |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 by GlasgowBlue |
She's also trying to retrospectively blame Keir Starmer for both the Vietnam War and invasion of Iraq.
|
Jesus feck, bit of a leap there | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:30 - Feb 11 with 3306 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 by chicoazul |
On both counts. They’re building up troops in the area; this is in part or entirely because of NATO expansionism.
Why does NATO exist anymore? It was an alliance to protect ourselves against an empire that dissolved 30 years ago. Nobody is saying we the US the hun or the French wouldn’t help a country in trouble with Russias decrepit armed forces unless we are in NATO; nobody is saying you have to be in NATO to qualify for help. |
I think you might be a bit out of date with 'Russia's decrepit armed forces', or so I read anyway.
Maybe it would have been better to disband NAto in that sweet spot a few years after the fall of the soviet union, yes. But here we are and I would ask if this is caused by NAto expansionism, why does Russia act now, when the vast bulk of 'new' Nato members have belonged to the org for nearly 20 years? | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 with 3303 views | Darth_Koont |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:18 - Feb 11 by Guthrum |
This has less to do with proxy wars than former Warsaw Pact/USSR states who greatly fear Russian re-expansion. That's why they all joined NATO, to gain some mutual defence security against their much larger neighbour and former overlord.
They do not wish to fall into some sort of Russian sphere of influence (again), eventually to be semi-absorbed as Belarus has been over the last couple of years. A lot of them have bad memories of the last time that happened.
Nobody actually wants a war in Ukraine, but Putin would love the threat of one to secure him some concessions in the region. |
But the Ukraine isn’t in NATO hence the proxy nature.
Ideally Putin’s aggression would be dealt with by a UN that hasn’t been neutered by powers like the US and others to maintain their influence and that of its allies.
The old sphere of influence nonsense is the root cause of this stuff and the mess of the Middle East. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 with 3302 views | SouperJim |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 by chicoazul |
On both counts. They’re building up troops in the area; this is in part or entirely because of NATO expansionism.
Why does NATO exist anymore? It was an alliance to protect ourselves against an empire that dissolved 30 years ago. Nobody is saying we the US the hun or the French wouldn’t help a country in trouble with Russias decrepit armed forces unless we are in NATO; nobody is saying you have to be in NATO to qualify for help. |
You don't have to be in NATO to get help? Not exactly how it went down in 2014 is it.
It would appear that NATO exists because unless you're a member of NATO, Putin can just decide to invade and take over half your country for spurious reasons, with minimal effective consequences. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 with 3297 views | hype313 |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:28 - Feb 11 by SouperJim |
Jesus feck, bit of a leap there |
Well, given Labour did take us into the Iraq war, it's not that much of a leap to think Starmer would have done.
She's still not got over the removal of her bit on the side. |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:33 - Feb 11 with 3287 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 by Darth_Koont |
But the Ukraine isn’t in NATO hence the proxy nature.
Ideally Putin’s aggression would be dealt with by a UN that hasn’t been neutered by powers like the US and others to maintain their influence and that of its allies.
The old sphere of influence nonsense is the root cause of this stuff and the mess of the Middle East. |
The US would probably love the UN to sort it out, but China and Russia would veto surely? I don't think you can out this one on the Americans fairly. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:34 - Feb 11 with 3271 views | giant_stow |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 by hype313 |
Well, given Labour did take us into the Iraq war, it's not that much of a leap to think Starmer would have done.
She's still not got over the removal of her bit on the side. |
Its the Vietnam bit that's the stinger though. I did study that era of history, but have totally forgotten it - would a labour leader have taken us into that war?!
Edti: eek, too many posts - sorry, I'll back off. [Post edited 11 Feb 2022 15:35]
| |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:38 - Feb 11 with 3247 views | Darth_Koont |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:25 - Feb 11 by GlasgowBlue |
She's also trying to retrospectively blame Keir Starmer for both the Vietnam War and invasion of Iraq.
|
Keir Starmer who’s intimating a doubling of the defense budget to 5% of GDP?
Welcome back, Tony. It’s like you never left. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:48 - Feb 11 with 3185 views | Darth_Koont |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:33 - Feb 11 by giant_stow |
The US would probably love the UN to sort it out, but China and Russia would veto surely? I don't think you can out this one on the Americans fairly. |
I think the US’s interventionist record over the past 50+ years (and our own) demands that I do.
I remember when Iraq was portrayed as a humanitarian mission.
Of course, none of this means I don’t have as bad if not a worse opinion of Putin and Russia. But I’d prefer a non-military solution than any dangerous sabre-rattling from either side. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:48 - Feb 11 with 3182 views | SouperJim |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:31 - Feb 11 by hype313 |
Well, given Labour did take us into the Iraq war, it's not that much of a leap to think Starmer would have done.
She's still not got over the removal of her bit on the side. |
I meant the Vietnam bit | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:52 - Feb 11 with 3162 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:34 - Feb 11 by giant_stow |
Its the Vietnam bit that's the stinger though. I did study that era of history, but have totally forgotten it - would a labour leader have taken us into that war?!
Edti: eek, too many posts - sorry, I'll back off. [Post edited 11 Feb 2022 15:35]
|
Professional KGB agent Harold Wilson refused America's request - bloody good job as well |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 15:52 - Feb 11 with 3156 views | Darth_Koont |
He said the right things back then. But I think Starmer is much more the old-school, establishment-loving authoritarian when he has the chance.
As soon as he’s become leader he’s miraculously shifted right on almost any and every issue. | |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 16:09 - Feb 11 with 3089 views | blueasfook |
She should have been thrown out of the party along with Corbyn.
Another huge reason for Labour's woeful election results. |  |
| |
| Diane Abbott says on 16:09 - Feb 11 with 3087 views | itfcjoe |
It's like some on that part of the left still think Russia is the USSR and can't see what it is now. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
